It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you for or against the deployment of NATO 'ground' invasion troops in Libya to ouster Gadahfi

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
With this war-mounting in Libya(longer than the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia) in Libya and complaining from NATO officials that it cannot continue longer with costs rising everyday, are you for deployments of ground troops? It's already too late for NATO to get involved so they cannot back away from Libyan Rebels. Right now, i heard NATO officials that they are complaining about the cost of the mission, admits that air-power alone cannot win it, and are trying to cut military personnels.

If so or not so for deployment of ground troops, then why?




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Im personally against the whole Grand Chess Game/NWO action that is going on at the moment evrywhere, not to mention the disappearing personal freedoms and all that jazz.

That being said, I am in a conflict of interest within myself as are other people I beleive in that even thou we dislike what the Western Powers are doing globally, we would rather be on their side rather than the tables being turned and us under attack by a Global Muslim Alliance.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I think this is in the wrong forum.... it's more of an opinion poll than a specific topic of discussion.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Totally against! Here in Britain the public sector is being cut hugely; with the privatization of healthcare and education looking very likely. This is due to an 'enormous' deficit that 'all' of society must pay for. At the same time, Cameron claims that we can afford to bomb Libya, which on the first day for 112 missiles fired, cost £28.5 million.

Is it just me, or is this Orwellian doublethink at its best? Especially considering the perception of the public is to cut spending, yet at the same time everyone is justifying this horrendously expensive war on Libya.

Personally I think this is just another way for American war contractors to get even more money. They get the contracts for the weapons, destroy Libyan cities, then Libya pays other American contractors to go in and rebuild the infrastructure. Win win situation, AND they can control the oil.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
the only way to get him, as with OBL, is the use of ground troops, till then it is just a show of; We have planes you do not, we have missiles you do not. I just hope it is NATO and not US forces. If we do go in then there is a good chance we will not stop there, the other nations that are in civil war could be the next ones to see ground deployment and then it will be a full WW3 for every nation will be in a war or state of war.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
If NATO cannot afford "ground troops", then don't send them. If Gadahfi really is killing his people, that's his problem. And it's up to the people to fight him, not unless something else is going on.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
That's why people i started a thread of course it's an opinion. I don't know about you guys but clearly we don't have an exit plan yet. So the only say to solve this by sending ground troops.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermidor
Totally against! Here in Britain the public sector is being cut hugely; with the privatization of healthcare and education looking very likely. This is due to an 'enormous' deficit that 'all' of society must pay for. At the same time, Cameron claims that we can afford to bomb Libya, which on the first day for 112 missiles fired, cost £28.5 million.

Is it just me, or is this Orwellian doublethink at its best? Especially considering the perception of the public is to cut spending, yet at the same time everyone is justifying this horrendously expensive war on Libya.

Personally I think this is just another way for American war contractors to get even more money. They get the contracts for the weapons, destroy Libyan cities, then Libya pays other American contractors to go in and rebuild the infrastructure. Win win situation, AND they can control the oil.


Fine then what should we do? If you make peace with Gadhfi and stay in power meaning all of NATO work are wasted nothing more. Plus you cannot turn back in Libyan rebels and tell them to shove it otherwise it will hurt the promise of the UN mandate. tje offer was made and the promise was rejected. Every-time Gadhfi offers, rebels rejected them. BTW didn't Britain and France asked for this war? Yes you did asked for this war you know as you guys wanted the war in the first place. Since it's a well known fact that most of oil that Europe get comes from Libya. we get little oil. The only thing we did to support NATO actions was our Navy as they only provided refueling for NATO warplanes. Now al lthe sudden you guys started to think that air-power alone wasn't going to help.

So now what? We can't just say "get out" otherwise, the work NATO did is nothing and promise to rebel was broken. There is no clear exit at this strategy point. But a military strategics for once. If you were in that position, what shall we do?
edit on 21-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Against. I am against any troops in the middle east period unless there is a real threat to the USA. I am tired of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters fighting and dying and being maimed for banksters and oil. JUST BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW! Every time I hear someone say our soldiers a fighting for freedom and protecting the USA I want to puke because it is just not true. The people and the soldiers themselves need to wake up and realize they are being exploited for thier love of thier country.

Listen to General USMC Smedely Butler one of the most decorated of his time:


Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is a Racket

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. www.fas.org...


Whole speech: www.informationclearinghouse.info...
PDF Download: www.ratical.org...

Download the speech and send to ever person and soldier you know!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Why would anyone be for sending troops into another Illegal War?

Robert Gates himself said Libya never posed a threat,



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


I respected your whole opinion dude but no the was isn't illegal since it is under a UN-mandate so therefore the war is legal. However for the war-powers for us Americans issue i cannot comment at that moment. But since NATO got involved anyways we are stuck so the NATO leaders cannot have an exit plan yet. Try and be a commander in chief for once and be on their shoes. You make a promise to the rebels then all the sudden get out, then you broke their promise. I'm talking about a military strategy, not just "get out" or anything. It's a matter of politics. This thread i started is about military strategy.
edit on 21-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I am strongly opposed, as the whole story is a lie.Just like all the other wars we are in. We need to oust our own bloody Government first before we stick our nose in someone else back yard.The real enemy of us all, are here at home.We have more in common with the people we are shooting than the sick wealthy morons that send us to to kill and die for !

edit on 21-6-2011 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2011 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The US involvement, they had sixty days, without Congress Approval they have an additional thirty days to exit completely,

Obama claimed he didn't need congress approval,

Attacking on 'False Pretenses' and War in General should be Illegal,

why can't they just halt involvement? why the 'Coincidental Urge' to oust Gadahfi?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Here is my take on it for what it is worth. After Libya's Gaddafi was found to be supporting terrorist actions such as the bombing of a popular West German nightclub frequented by American Servicemen, Reagan launched a bombing attack on Libya. Gaddafi was lucky to escape with his life.

Gadaffi then turned around and renounced terrorism and turned over all kinds of intel to the US. However, there was no attempt at regime change back then.

Well, when the people in Libya decided to try to overthrow Gaddafi, the Europeans became concerned. You see, Libya sells its oil mostly to Europe. So, sensing an easy victory, Obama agreed to participate in the airstrikes. If you recall, the Obama Administration and the Senate leadership were predicting Gaddafi would be gone in a matter of days, based on the results Reagan had with Libya. But there is a big difference in getting a Tyrant like Gaddafi to change his ways and forcing him out of power completely.

When Gaddafi refused to capitulate, it became apparent that there is once again, no "Plan B" for France and UK in Libya. No one seems to have any idea what to do now.

So, to best way to not get in the conflict was that NATO should not have gotten involved in Libya in the 1st place at all. In fact NATO should never get involved in any military action without a clear Strategic Plan that defines victory and how it will be achieved. Well too late now, the deal is done. So what shall we do now if this war kept on dragging on? Ground troops or something?
edit on 21-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


I don't wanna send America's to do a job that North African's should be doing.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


That's why it's European problem not ours.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
If NATO cannot afford "ground troops", then don't send them. If Gadahfi really is killing his people, that's his problem. And it's up to the people to fight him, not unless something else is going on.


usually though i agree for te most part, that Libya is no threat.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by 13th Zodiac
 


Well said sir, I think its quite obvious we started the whole thing in the first place. one of the many reasons i belive was the fact that ghadafi was about to start a north Africa alliance and trade oil for gold and not dollars.
Its a despicable situation for all involved.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


I'm 100% against it as they have NO right OR reason.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


I'm 100% against it as they have NO right OR reason.


To say against or with is a matter of opinion. I'm against is too but too bad, though, the rebel are not well trained and now people complaning about the cost of libyan now. I agree with your opinions but what shall we do? There is no clear exit plan as of now. Send in ground troops? Put yourself as a military commander for once. You realize there was no plan to win and cannot turn back on rebels, send in ground forces or no?
edit on 21-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join